Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 12:17 PM   #161

Temujin's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Martian Protectorate of Earth
Posts: 213

No offence but does Finland really pose a threat to the powerful Russians? I mean, none of the Scandinavian countries can provide a proper match for the Russians.
Temujin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 12:46 PM   #162

Rasta's Avatar
Spiritual Ronin
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Minnesnowta
Posts: 19,583

Quote:
Originally Posted by oshron View Post
first, there will be a nuclear World War III, in which much of the world will become irradiated and the United States will split into three countries, the most powerful of which will be the American Empire. Japan will come out relatively unscathed and becoming a rising superpower as it develops a "radiation scrubber" that cures areas hit by nuclear bombs

then, there'll be a non-nuclear World War IV, over a dispute in the Indochinese Peninsula that causes it to also be known as the Second Vietnam War








actually, thats from ghost in the shell

i think that (against the rules of the thread) based on a nostradamus prediction i hear once that a great war will begin in 2012 and last twenty-seven years (to 2039), after which the world will experience 1000 years of peace.
I was about to say that sounds very familiar.
Rasta is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:54 AM   #163

Notorious's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 8

I can smell a third Balkan War coming..
Notorious is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:13 AM   #164

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,453

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kebuka View Post
I have mentioned elsewhere that I have a keen interest in futurology. So in that interest, I ask you: Is the age of large scale conventional war a thing of the past? Will we ever see anything the likes of the two world wars?
Over the course of history there has been a set of balances. Quality vs quantity, regular vs mercenary, tradition vs initiative, and so on. These tend to go in cycles and are dependent on the prevailing societies that engage in war.

At the moment the emphasis has moved well away from quantity, with the arms race inspired by technological progress (and the Cold War) forcing higher costs on armed forces in order to remain competitive. This has resulted in a stronger emphasis on mercenary activity, and these days the trade has almost become respectable with private military companies performing valuable service in contract to national forces in many ofthe leading armies in the world today.

For instance, the Royal Air Force uses civilian contractors to train their pilots. Security organisations have become an accepted part of hostile theatres (albeit with some controversy)

Because the arms race shows no sign of slowing down the trend will continue. Armed forces will reduce ever further in size and eventually this will cause problems as those nations who indulge in policing global security will find it harder to undertake objectives. The American forces in particular are at strong risk of severe reduction due to economic issues. This will mean that co-operative effort, such as that organised for the UN, will take precedence, a situation that will allow the world to become inherently less stable as those who want to instigate hostility will have more room for that initiative. In other words, smaller scale conflict will become more common, large scale conflict a very expensive and undesirable proposition for all concerned, and the temptation to use short cuts like WMD's all the more likely.

take for instance Libya and Syria. In both countries, rebellions quickly find arms and resist national forces, and already the west are discussing how to assist rebel forces in Syria even when such assistance has been categorically denied before. To some extent this is realpolitik - simply how the game is played - but notice that assistance is becoming a better option that interference.
caldrail is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:20 AM   #165

Tapio, the king of forest's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin View Post
No offence but does Finland really pose a threat to the powerful Russians? I mean, none of the Scandinavian countries can provide a proper match for the Russians.
It doesn't, and it never has. This has not prevented wars in the past. But in theory some western country might invade Finland and use it as a brigdehead for attacks into Russia.
Tapio, the king of forest is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:14 AM   #166

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,453

Churchill wanted to invade Finalnd in WW2, both to deny important resources to the Germans, and also to deny Russian advancement. He also asked for a plan (Operation Unthinkable) to invade Russia after WW2. This was more dependent on using Denmark and Poland than Finland however, and as you might expect, the planners were not enthusiastic.
caldrail is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 03:00 PM   #167

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 2,839
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleplanewreck View Post
I don't think there will be another world war on the scale of the last two.


Agreed. Casualty rates in the hundreds of thousands dont seem to be acceptable any more
funakison is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:11 AM   #168

Tapio, the king of forest's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
Churchill wanted to invade Finalnd in WW2, both to deny important resources to the Germans, and also to deny Russian advancement. He also asked for a plan (Operation Unthinkable) to invade Russia after WW2. This was more dependent on using Denmark and Poland than Finland however, and as you might expect, the planners were not enthusiastic.
There is no peace in the world!

Was it invade or just support? I believe Finland would have accepted all help if Russia had attacked it. Western invasion however would have been totally absurd. If nothing else, why attack a western democratic nation? Also Churchill was a friend of our commander-in-chief.

In the future I really hope Finland stays out of these games that major powers play. In some headquarters generals study maps and see Finland as a threat. We have an army to prevent war, not to attack our neighbours.
Tapio, the king of forest is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 04:30 AM   #169

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,453

Churchill really was intending to invade, to block Russian advance westward (he did not like communism). I can't remember the name of the projected operation though.
caldrail is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 05:38 AM   #170

Tapio, the king of forest's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
Churchill really was intending to invade, to block Russian advance westward (he did not like communism). I can't remember the name of the projected operation though.
I can't see how Finland fighting the Brits in the west and the Russians in the east would have helped anyone else than the Russians.
Tapio, the king of forest is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
future, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The future Son of Cathal Speculative History 8 December 17th, 2011 11:00 PM
Do you believe its possible to predict the future? Salah Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 49 April 12th, 2010 10:25 PM
Future Wars Stephen Speculative History 20 March 20th, 2009 06:14 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.